Freemasons

I wanted to start this thread separately from the thread pws111 started, because I think it is an important issue related to the subject, but I didn't want to railroad the discussion away from his research results, which I think are of a different matter on their own.

One issue that I also agree in the strong possibility of is that Freemasonry might have been custodians of something they might not have been entirely aware of.

To approach this question, I think we need to try to answer a few questions, while limiting the discussion to the output of information provided by, or introduced by, D and Maranatha:

"Where is it Hidden?"
According to both the Maranatha book's timeline and discussions on humble mason, the answer is that it can be found in the Royal Arch Ritual. The Ritual was added on the the previous other 3 degrees, as a chapter of 4 separate proceedings.

"Why was it 'hidden' there"?
Allegedly, to protect or preserve something that was in real danger of becoming lost. But of course, this should be considered with a sense of criticality, since the likelihood of it's probability is equally opposed by the unlikelihood that something was intentionally hidden; without first having crucial and substantial evidence. In other words, what we are looking for as having an intended placement there could also be there as part of some unfamiliar tradition, or really for any other purpose.

"By whom"
It is important to remember that, even if we might believe that it was the Knights Templar that gave their secretes to the Masons (which is a theory I do enjoy) , they went defunct in 1312. Freemasonry, as an organization, appeared much later in the early 1700s (although there are several sources that point to "Masonic" themes tracing back to even as far back as the 1300s themselves). But to truly make this connection, we would have to first identify what it was that happened to remain intact, and account for what happened to it between the 1300s and the 1700s.

Recently I posed the question to Duncan, with regard to a trend of gradual "shifts" within the rituals between the 1700s and the present, how one would expect to identify something that had supposedly remained intact when only in the last 300 years we are able to witness conflations and changes in the forms and wordings of the rituals themselves? In other words, if there was not a knowledgeable caretaker involved, how would we trust that what we are seeing is the original message and not the embellishment of a contemporaneous addition or interpretation? The answer is that there would have to have been something rudimentary and essential that had never needed cause for change, such as a symbol or image, that would have survived with its message intact, without need for a caretaker to make sure it remained.

According to other sources, the Royal Arch Ritual's origins can be traced to French Freemasonry (a derivative, yet altering, of English Freemasonry), where some place Chevalier Ramsay (Andrew Michael Ramsay, who is also credited in the Maranatha timeline) as introducing the ritual into English Masonry. (If I remember correctly, there was a section on the old website speaking about the Ritual being sold to its current house for a tiny sum; with a receipt hanging in a Masonic Museum in London.)
But again, when did the contact between the French Masons and their source take place? Is it of an older, French tradition of sorts, reunited with its English counterpart? Maybe? Who knows?

"what is the nature of the secret"?
This is the most problematic question of all, because we will inevitably find precisely all the evidence to support what it is that we seek. It is the problem of every so-called "conspiracy", since there is no way to either support or eliminate every possibility, with each theory put forth with our own supposition, and without substantial evidence to either prove nor dispel our theories. If there were substantial evidence to prove our theories wrong, we would no longer continue. If there were substantial evidence to prove us right, then the answer would be self-apparent. But it is never either. If our theory is to find the literal, physical Ark of the Covenant, there is enough circumstantial evidence to send us off, but not enough substantial evidence to prove its truthful existence or non-existence. If the theory we chose is a physical cup or chalice, the same thing. There is enough evidence to establish conjecture, but not enough to either prove or disprove.

In the Master Mason's ritual, the "loss of the Master's Word" is explained, and in the Royal Arch ritual, the "recovery of the Master's Word" is explained. This is what is commonly understood as the item which has been hidden here. The "word", described in other sources, could very well be the same word spoken about at the beginning of the bible. "In the beginning was the word."

Several sources speak about the Royal Arch being the most beautiful and spiritual ritual of the Masonic degrees. In it, it describes the process of excavating down into the ground, reaching the top of a temple arch, removing its keystone and descending down into the crypt to find the true name of God. In other words, one goes into the place where they stand, Earth, to find who their real God is by digging and descending lower.

If we chose the subject to be one of a spiritual secret, which is the theory I favor, there is equally not enough evidence to disprove, but perhaps enough evidence to inspire continuance, which for me is all the proof necessary.

Which is why, in my mind, the secret will remain Speculative, and therefore rightfully kept in the frame of a spiritual context. Duncan himself has spoken repeatedly about addressing the literal, moral, allegorical and anagogical meanings on humble mason.
I believe it is the anagogical meaning which is what that highest focus is about.

This is a very good topic. I will just make a few comments for now if you don't mind. If I get too far off the path you want to explore, please feel free to tell me because I can't separate the rituals from what I am doing. Everything I have used is in them.

What is the best way to hide something? It is often easy to deceive people if you just put the secret right in front of their face.

Magicians are experts at performing an illusion while you are looking at exactly what they want you to look at. They make you look at the right hand, but all the action is done by the left.

In the four rituals you listed, look at the knocks. Count them. Then compare the numbers from the rituals to the numbers I use in the Bible.

Look for "First and Last" in the first ritual. This concept is essential to solving the mystery.

Why so much emphasis on the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple? Is it just for show? Or, could they be using the oldest trick in the book? Hide it in plain sight!

There are at least three major secrets hidden in the words "ROYAL ARCH". It involves the unbalanced divide of four, first and last, and gematria. This secret will also confirm what I posted about the Lost Word. Try to find it, but if you can't I will tell you in a couple days.

I wanted to start this thread separately from the thread pws111 started, because I think it is an important issue related to the subject, but I didn't want to railroad the discussion away from his research results, which I think are of a different matter on their own.

One issue that I also agree in the strong possibility of is that Freemasonry might have been custodians of something they might not have been entirely aware of.

To approach this question, I think we need to try to answer a few questions, while limiting the discussion to the output of information provided by, or introduced by, D and Maranatha:

"Where is it Hidden?"
According to both the Maranatha book's timeline and discussions on humble mason, the answer is that it can be found in the Royal Arch Ritual. The Ritual was added on the the previous other 3 degrees, as a chapter of 4 separate proceedings.

"Why was it 'hidden' there"?
Allegedly, to protect or preserve something that was in real danger of becoming lost. But of course, this should be considered with a sense of criticality, since the likelihood of it's probability is equally opposed by the unlikelihood that something was intentionally hidden; without first having crucial and substantial evidence. In other words, what we are looking for as having an intended placement there could also be there as part of some unfamiliar tradition, or really for any other purpose.

"By whom"
It is important to remember that, even if we might believe that it was the Knights Templar that gave their secretes to the Masons (which is a theory I do enjoy) , they went defunct in 1312. Freemasonry, as an organization, appeared much later in the early 1700s (although there are several sources that point to "Masonic" themes tracing back to even as far back as the 1300s themselves). But to truly make this connection, we would have to first identify what it was that happened to remain intact, and account for what happened to it between the 1300s and the 1700s.

Recently I posed the question to Duncan, with regard to a trend of gradual "shifts" within the rituals between the 1700s and the present, how one would expect to identify something that had supposedly remained intact when only in the last 300 years we are able to witness conflations and changes in the forms and wordings of the rituals themselves? In other words, if there was not a knowledgeable caretaker involved, how would we trust that what we are seeing is the original message and not the embellishment of a contemporaneous addition or interpretation? The answer is that there would have to have been something rudimentary and essential that had never needed cause for change, such as a symbol or image, that would have survived with its message intact, without need for a caretaker to make sure it remained.

According to other sources, the Royal Arch Ritual's origins can be traced to French Freemasonry (a derivative, yet altering, of English Freemasonry), where some place Chevalier Ramsay (Andrew Michael Ramsay, who is also credited in the Maranatha timeline) as introducing the ritual into English Masonry. (If I remember correctly, there was a section on the old website speaking about the Ritual being sold to its current house for a tiny sum; with a receipt hanging in a Masonic Museum in London.)
But again, when did the contact between the French Masons and their source take place? Is it of an older, French tradition of sorts, reunited with its English counterpart? Maybe? Who knows?

"what is the nature of the secret"?
This is the most problematic question of all, because we will inevitably find precisely all the evidence to support what it is that we seek. It is the problem of every so-called "conspiracy", since there is no way to either support or eliminate every possibility, with each theory put forth with our own supposition, and without substantial evidence to either prove nor dispel our theories. If there were substantial evidence to prove our theories wrong, we would no longer continue. If there were substantial evidence to prove us right, then the answer would be self-apparent. But it is never either. If our theory is to find the literal, physical Ark of the Covenant, there is enough circumstantial evidence to send us off, but not enough substantial evidence to prove its truthful existence or non-existence. If the theory we chose is a physical cup or chalice, the same thing. There is enough evidence to establish conjecture, but not enough to either prove or disprove.

In the Master Mason's ritual, the "loss of the Master's Word" is explained, and in the Royal Arch ritual, the "recovery of the Master's Word" is explained. This is what is commonly understood as the item which has been hidden here. The "word", described in other sources, could very well be the same word spoken about at the beginning of the bible. "In the beginning was the word."

Several sources speak about the Royal Arch being the most beautiful and spiritual ritual of the Masonic degrees. In it, it describes the process of excavating down into the ground, reaching the top of a temple arch, removing its keystone and descending down into the crypt to find the true name of God. In other words, one goes into the place where they stand, Earth, to find who their real God is by digging and descending lower.

If we chose the subject to be one of a spiritual secret, which is the theory I favor, there is equally not enough evidence to disprove, but perhaps enough evidence to inspire continuance, which for me is all the proof necessary.

Which is why, in my mind, the secret will remain Speculative, and therefore rightfully kept in the frame of a spiritual context. Duncan himself has spoken repeatedly about addressing the literal, moral, allegorical and anagogical meanings on humble mason.
I believe it is the anagogical meaning which is what that highest focus is about.

Irrespective of what was hidden, who hid it, where it was hidden, when it was hidden, how it was hidden don't you have the same basic issue?

1) It was being 'hidden' for a reason
2) It was meant to be found

If you accept that it was hidden to keep it from the profane, then it wasn't meant to be found by the profane, If you accept that it was meant to be discovered, then why hide it? If this secret is so important that it mustn't be lost and that it must be kept from the 'unworthy', then surely simply passing on what it is, where it is, blah...to someone you trust is preferable to alluding to it to all and sundry and just hoping that no one untrustworthy spots it - BUT - on the other hand wanting - no, requiring - that someone trustworthy does find it? Does that in anyway seem sensible to you?

D also mentioned CS Lewis and how he hid 'stuff' in his writings - I don't dispute that - but I doubt if CS Lewis cared whether the extra layers were found or not. It was an academic exercise..an intellectual game. Not a matter of life and death.

I think this is subtly different to the concept in the Emerald Tablet - there, knowledge is meant to be kept and passed down the generations and that had to be maintained - and religion was then used as that transport layer. It wasn't hidden per se. It was just a method to make sure the info wasn't lost.
Now, following that concept, maybe the 'secret' here (much as in Masonry) wasn't meant to be hidden - but due to a lapse in diligence over time, was lost. So the paradox of hide and find disappears and it becomes just a case of rediscovering something that was once known. But then the Emerald Tablet is also just a work of fiction.

Suppose that I have the Hope Diamond and I tell the world that I will put the diamond in Times Square where anyone can get it. I also tell you that all you have to do is figure out the secret, walk over and pick it up. If you are successful at finding the secret, it is yours.

I then build a massive bullet proof, bomb proof glass container and put a copy of the Hope Diamond in that case and lock it up. The case is openly displayed right in the middle of Times Square. I also put armed guards all around it 24 hours a day with cameras watching every conceivable angle.

I then place the real Hope Diamond on an open display board inside some random store in Times Square with dozens of other pieces of similar looking costume jewelry.

Where do you think people will focus? I told you it was where anybody could get it, but you ignored that little fact because you were distracted by the glass case and armed guards.

How long do you think it would be before someone found the real diamond and just walked over and picked it up? It would probably be a very long time because everybody would be so focused on trying to figure out how to get inside the obviously impenetrable box. The assumption that kills you is that nobody would be stupid enough to just put it right out in the open unprotected.

Suppose that I have the Hope Diamond and I tell the world that I will put the diamond in Times Square where anyone can get it. I also tell you that all you have to do is figure out the secret, walk over and pick it up. If you are successful at finding the secret, it is yours.

I then build a massive bullet proof, bomb proof glass container and put a copy of the Hope Diamond in that case and lock it up. The case is openly displayed right in the middle of Times Square. I also put armed guards all around it 24 hours a day with cameras watching every conceivable angle.

I then place the real Hope Diamond on an open display board inside some random store in Times Square with dozens of other pieces of similar looking costume jewelry.

Where do you think people will focus? I told you it was where anybody could get it, but you ignored that little fact because you were distracted by the glass case and armed guards.

How long do you think it would be before someone found the real diamond and just walked over and picked it up? It would probably be a very long time because everybody would be so focused on trying to figure out how to get inside the obviously impenetrable box. The assumption that kills you is that nobody would be stupid enough to just put it right out in the open unprotected.

Perhaps we are dealing with a similar misdirection here.

But AFAIK that isn't what has happened in any way shape or form or is anywhere near to an analogy is it?
Surely the 'secret' has not been advertised at all - 99% of the population are not aware of what the Grail is (actually is anybody aware of what the Grail is?). It isn't as though a group did what you say above. Not even the Masons - nor the Templars - the only thing that gets close to what you describe is religion (all religions in general) itself, whereby you are promised certain things (the diamond) if you follow a certain path. But initally the 'secret' was held (hidden) by Priests and the only way to it was via their obscured path.
Your analogy is not talking about hiding a secret to keep it from the unworthy is it? You are not making any distinction - and anyone can get the diamond as long as they work out where it is. Also you also still don't address the why - the motive - of the people putting the diamond on display in the first place - if they want the diamond to be taken - then again simply give it to someone. If they don't want the diamond to be taken and want to keep it secret, don't advertise it at all. No hints, no allusions - just simply keep it safe somewhere - why even put a fake on display? What does that achieve?

But AFAIK that isn't what has happened in any way shape or form or is anywhere near to an analogy is it?
Surely the 'secret' has not been advertised at all - 99% of the population are not aware of what the Grail is (actually is anybody aware of what the Grail is?). It isn't as though a group did what you say above. Not even the Masons - nor the Templars - the only thing that gets close to what you describe is religion (all religions in general) itself, whereby you are promised certain things (the diamond) if you follow a certain path. But initally the 'secret' was held (hidden) by Priests and the only way to it was via their obscured path.
Your analogy is not talking about hiding a secret to keep it from the unworthy is it? You are not making any distinction - and anyone can get the diamond as long as they work out where it is. Also you also still don't address the why - the motive - of the people putting the diamond on display in the first place - if they want the diamond to be taken - then again simply give it to someone. If they don't want the diamond to be taken and want to keep it secret, don't advertise it at all. No hints, no allusions - just simply keep it safe somewhere - why even put a fake on display? What does that achieve?

Au contraire mon frere.

But that is exactly what they have done. They have told the world they have the Ark of The Covenant and you don't believe them, because nobody is that stupid, right? you have said it yourself. Nobody that wants to protect something would come right out and say they have it and then make a way for you to find it.

Have you ever visited the George Washington Masonic Memorial? I would highly recommend it.

But that is exactly what they have done. They have told the world they have the Ark of The Covenant and you don't believe them, because nobody is that stupid, right? you have said it yourself. Nobody that wants to protect something would come right out and say they have it and then make a way for you to find it.

Have you ever visited the George Washington Masonic Memorial? I would highly recommend it.

Who has said that? Who has said they have the Ark? I must have missed something completely. I don't recall Masons saying that, and I don't recall that of the Templars either. In fact I don't recall anyone saying they had the Ark apart from the Jews who wrote down their oral traditions somewhere when - 600BC'ish? And by the time it was written, the Ark was already gone (so was it a myth anyway?).

No, I have never been to the GW memorial. Is it anything like Cleopatra's Needle?

Just another thing for you to ponder as well. Imagine we're back in the 14th Century. We have discovered the Ark - the most valuable artefact that could be had. Imagine that we (a renegade bunch of religious 'thugs' (term used appropriately)) now wanted to keep that artefact safe. Would we decide to stick it on a boat and send it n'000 miles away, to a land where anything may exist (and was thought to - recall 'monsters be here ' on maps) where it simply couldn't be protected at all? Across a sea that hadn't been explored? Across a sea where the destination was unknown?

The George Washington Masonic Memorial is the location of the fake Ark of the Covenant. It is on public display for all to see in a room with murals all over the walls showing the Ark being transported out of Egypt. On a side not, the memorial is in Alexandria, VA, which connects it to Alexandria, Egypt.

The Memorial is located exactly 7 miles from the real one and I will eventually get around to showing how to find it. Maybe I will start posting it on my website this weekend if I get the time. It will be found here, Chasing the Ark of God - The Trail to The Grail

They don't have to directly say we got it, dude. They are showing it in everything that is Masonry. Just about everything is related to the Bible, the Ark and/or Solomon's Temple in some way.

The George Washington Masonic Memorial is the location of the fake Ark of the Covenant. It is on public display for all to see in a room with murals all over the walls showing the Ark being transported out of Egypt. On a side not, the memorial is in Alexandria, VA, which connects it to Alexandria, Egypt.

The Memorial is located exactly 7 miles from the real one and I will eventually get around to showing how to find it. Maybe I will start posting it on my website this weekend if I get the time. It will be found here, Chasing the Ark of God - The Trail to The Grail

They don't have to directly say we got it, dude. They are showing it in everything that is Masonry. Just about everything is related to the Bible, the Ark and/or Solomon's Temple in some way.

I thought you said:

Originally Posted by pws

But that is exactly what they have done. They have told the world they have the Ark of The Covenant and you don't believe them...

Who said that? Who said they had the Ark?
Isn't your comment a bit like saying that if a Church has an image of Christ in it, then they also have Christ? Doesn't any replica version of an Ark, then become a symbol meaning that whoever owns or commissioned that building also has the Ark?

I can draw a diagram of anything, but that isn't stating that I have it OR stating that the thing exists.

Did the Templars state (in writing) in any way shape or form that they had the Ark? Have the Masons?
Has anyone even ever shown any link between the Templars and the Masons at all? Two organisations, with two completely different reasons for being, existing 400 years apart (that's the same as now back to the original Masons) but over a time where writing wasn't in the common man's skill set and education was controlled by the Church to a large degree.

Imagine we're back in the 14th Century. We have discovered the Ark - the most valuable artefact that could be had. Imagine that we (a renegade bunch of religious 'thugs' (term used appropriately)) now wanted to keep that artefact safe. Would we decide to stick it on a boat and send it n'000 miles away, to a land where anything may exist (and was thought to - recall 'monsters be here ' on maps) where it simply couldn't be protected at all? Across a sea that hadn't been explored? Across a sea where the destination was unknown?

Across the sea is the best place for it. The Templars were expert seamen and the destination was not unknown to them. Investigate the Kensington Runestone, found in Minnesota. It is dated 1362 and has very strong connections to the Templars and Roslyn Temple. Of course there are deniers, just like people deny everything.